I don't believe the increased abuse of children is an inevitable result of this ruling, but I accept that it is a possibility. Reasonable people may disagree.
I'm guessing you'd be singing a different tune if one of your children were abused by someone who was desensitized to the evil of child abuse by virtual kiddy porn.
I would be wrong to do so. I accepted the reality of child abusers before this ruling, and I accept it afterwards. I will continue to be vigilant against such abuses of my children, just as I was before.
So, what say you: Would you just accept it if your child were abused and chalk it up to collateral damage in the extension of the 1st Amendment to cover perversity, or would you suddenly grow a pair and act like a man?
A rather loaded question. If I am properly doing my job as a parent, I will be much less likely to have to deal with such a contingency. And from my perspective, a real man doesn't ask "the village" to raise his children for him.
I believe that's a fair enough answer to your questions for now. Would you like to answer mine? What are the potential negative consequences and implications if the court had ruled in the opposite direction?
What are the potential negative consequences and implications if the court had ruled in the opposite direction?
There is absolutely no compelling reason why anyone ought to have access to child pornography, virtual or otherwise. It is a fairly simple thing to specifically prohibit such "speech" (and I use that term loosely) while having absolutely no impact on political, religous, or other speech which is, and forever ought to be, protected under the First Amendment. There is plenty of historical precedent for this, in the anti-pornography laws which were held to be Constitutional until the 1970s. Nobody is suggesting that we ban all pornography, but there is no reason to not ban any imagery which depicts unlawful sexual activity with minors.
Why do you believe that this narrowly defined class of speech ought to be protected?